The High Court confirmed the conviction of Joginder Singh for murder but set aside the conviction of other accused for conspiracy, acquitting them due to insufficient evidence proving a joint agreement to commit the crime.
Crl.A. No.690-SB of 2005 allowed; Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005 dismissed in part.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: January 3, 2012
JOGINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
2.
Crl.A. No.690-SB of 2005
SULTAN SINGH & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL.
PRESENT: MR. ARVIND SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT IN CRL. A. 297-DB OF 2005 & AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE APPELLANTS IN CRL.A. NO.690-SB OF 2005
MR. H.S. SRAN, ADDL.A.G., HARYANA.
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further R.I. for 6 months. Accused Joginder Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC also and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 1Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-2-
year. Accused Sultan Singh, Ram Singh and Sher Singh have jointly preferred Crl.A. No.690-SB of 2005 and accused Joginder Singh has separately filed Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005 challenging the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. As both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgement, Crl.A. No.690-SB of 2005 also was tagged with Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005 for common disposal.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-3-
registered a formal FIR. He visited the house of accused Joginder Singh in village Tabra, prepared rough site plan (Ex.PW11/A). PW10 Pawan Kumar, Photographer was engaged to take photograph of the dead body. PW11 conducted inquest and prepared an inquest report (Ex.PW7/D). He recovered from the spot a cot and strings which were half burnt. PW9 Karamjeet Kaur who was the eye witness was examined and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by PW11.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-4-
about 9.30 p.m. when accused Joginder Singh was taking his meals at his house, deceased Laxmi Devi proceeded to the kitchen to bring a glass of water, but her clothes accidentally caught fire from burning kerosene lamp when she was coming out of the kitchen. She came running and fell on the floor. Accused Joginder Singh tried to extinguish the fire. His brother Ram Singh and others in the village were called by Joginder Singh. The villagers alongwith Ram Singh took Laxmi Devi to a Primary Health Centre, Ismailabad and thereafter she was taken to Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra for treatment. But the very same day she died at about 11.30 p.m. a nd thereafter she was brought back to the house. Accused Sher Singh was not present in the village as he had been to village Kultaran. Accused Sultan Singh was sleeping in his field house.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-5-
Devi. It was only accused Ram Singh who arranged a jeep to take the victim to the hospital.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-6-
in by the accused in the background of defence set up by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal, it is submitted.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-7-
Joginder Singh to adopt accused Sher Singh, son of accused Sultan Singh. The above version of PW9 is completely corroborated by PW1 who is none other than the very brother of victim Laxmi Devi.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-8-
process of fighting fire, the moment DW1 rushed to the bedroom of Joginder Singh to rescue Laxmi Devi. Therefore, the injuries found on the person of accused Joginder Singh does not absolve him from the offence of murder committed by him.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-9-
prosecution should prove that accused had a common intention to commit the act of murder. It has to further establish that all the accused agreed to commit the murder before ever the actual murder was committed by one of them. Infact, such an agreement is the gist of the offence under Section 120-B of IPC. There is nothing on record to establish that accused joined together and agreed to commit the murder of Laxmi Devi. Further the star witness PW9 has categorically stated that accused Ram Singh who was infact associated by DW1 Rakam Singh came down to the scene of occurrence by scaling the wall. It was she who opened the door to give access to both of them. She has also come out with a damaging version that it was Ram Singh who admittedly extinguished the fire alongwith DW1 and also took the injured Laxmi Devi to the hospital for treatment. The evidence of DW1 is found to be on the same line. Such a version of PW9 belies the case of the prosecution that accused Ram Singh also was part of the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused.
Crl.A. No.297-DB of 2005
-10-
IPC.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
January 3, 2012 ( S.S.SARON ) Gulati JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused Joginder Singh was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC based on the daughter's testimony and recovered evidence.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC involving Sultan Singh, Ram Singh, and Sher Singh.
Whether the conviction of four accused for murder and conspiracy could be sustained on the evidence adduced.
Joginder Singh
Sultan Singh
Ram Singh
Sher Singh @ Shera
State of Haryana
M. Jeyapaul
S.S. Saron
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court